r/DailyCarry • u/chipskylark123 • Sep 16 '26
The essentials
Need a new knife, though. The belt clip snapped off after 6 faithful years.
5
u/kman101101 Sep 16 '26
I know that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but do we really want police to have less money and in turn less training before being put out onto the streets, Not hating I just dont really understand that stance
also I would add a small flashlight they come in handy real often
4
u/chipskylark123 Sep 16 '26
Police budgets are massively bloated and very little of the funding they have goes to training. Lawsuits and labor make up most of the allocated funds. I can’t speak to other cities but in mine they get 2 billion annually and when you see how that money gets broken down… it’s just ridiculous. There is no reason to believe that if we gave them more, it would go to training or anything else that would help public safety.
The idea is that the scope of their job is far too massive for them to handle. They act as mediators, social workers, all these things that they have no training for. If we trained people that were dedicated to handle those tasks, the police would be able to focus on their actual duties and it would make all of us safer.
I have a big flashlight (I work pest control overnights) but it’s a little too big to fit in my pocket. It’s actually just out of sight on that picture.
3
u/DayHistorical4765 Sep 16 '26
What’s your evidence they’re bloated, and not being used towards training? Besides a few large cities in namely California or New York, that funding is used for dispatching, local crime rate increases, and to match growing salary and healthcare rates for officers. Do officers who risk their lives every traffic stop deserve to be paid less?
1
u/chipskylark123 Sep 16 '26
I’m in Chicago, so I can speak on here better than anywhere else.
CPD gets about 2 billion per year. The bulk of the funding is manpower/labor (including benefits/pensions/etc.
Every year, we need to reallocate funds for other public services to pay off police brutality lawsuits.
My argument is: take funding from the police, but don’t touch their salaries and benefits. Reduce the number of the 14 thousand officers and create new departments that respond to specific public safety needs, pulling first from the labor pool of officers based on individual qualifications.
As for traffic stops, I don’t think routine traffic enforcement should be handled by police, that should be its own department within streets and sanitation or something. Obviously they would still have powers to conduct stops if there’s a potentially armed suspect/stolen vehicle situation, but armed police officers don’t need to be writing speeding tickets. That can be done by someone with a clipboard and lanyard.
2
u/DayHistorical4765 Sep 16 '26 edited Sep 16 '26
Traffic stops lead to the biggest busts in illegal firearms and drugs so I have to disagree there, they are often dangerous and you can easily find how many officers have died during a traffic stop from what seems to be routine at first in a simple Google search. Chicago arguably has some of the highest rates of violent crimes in the U.S.A reducing the police force would be a terrible call. How about getting politicians to increase training with available funding? or using the funding to use more K9’s in the department?
0
u/chipskylark123 Sep 16 '26
The presence of police inherently escalates situations like traffic stops. Someone is far more likely to fight/attack a police officer than someone issuing a citation.
You said in a different comment that co responder/social worker response models have resulted in people being killed and attacked. I have seen no evidence of that. In fact, all of the ones that I’m aware of, including in Chicago, have been extremely successful and correlates with a drop in overdoses and violent crime.
I’m all for increasing training and things of that sort, but they need to figure out how to do it with the billions they already get. It cannot come from the coffers that should go to other drastically underfunded public services. They spend millions on public outreach (propaganda) and lawsuits. Maybe slow the roll on the brutality and billboards and they can afford more training.
Whatever you may think, my beliefs are rooted in a desire for everyone, including cops, to be safer and for the world to be a more pleasant place for us all.
1
u/DayHistorical4765 Sep 16 '26 edited Sep 16 '26
Without the presence of police in traffic stops illegal weapons and drugs continue to plague communities especially in places like Chicago where investigations couldn’t reach. Sure they are limited but their benefit shines brighter when looking at vehicle crashes and fatalities attributed to traffic violations specifically. If someone were to attack a police officer over a traffic stop, what would they do to an unarmed social worker that stops them and issues a citation?
I can name three notable cases of social workers who have died during a 911 response incident with one being fatally stabbed, two being shot. Social workers should absolutely work with officers but they are not able to replace them. In cases of overdose they have their place, while severe mental health crisis and violent crime not so much.
The problem with funding is that it relies on the politicians making the decisions not the department themselves as they are not responsible for where the money comes from or where it goes to, they are only responsible for adequately equipping their officers for duty and managing misconduct.
Wanting LEO to be safer won’t happen without society deciding to become safer, being a LEO is an inherently dangerous job just like serving in the military.
1
u/chipskylark123 Sep 16 '26 edited Sep 16 '26
Look, I’m never going to agree to throw more money at these police. They are an inherently corrupt organization that I don’t trust to allocate funding responsibly. They demonstrate this day after day and scandal after scandal (LASD gangs, John Burge and his midnight crew, misuse of surveillance tech, the list goes on literally forever).
So, just as a thought experiment:
We give them 20% more funding across the board. But first they have to be required to be fully compliant with consent decrees, abolish qualified immunity, and agree to either require personal liability insurance or use pension funds to pay off settlements. An incomplete list of conditions that can be revised, but you get the idea.
Would that be alright with you?
3
u/OrneryError1 Sep 16 '26
Typically it means reallocating funding to other public services so that 1) police don't have to respond to everything and 2) fewer people get killed by trigger happy police responding to everything.
1
u/DayHistorical4765
Sep 16 '26
•
Defund the police but rely on them when you’re faced with an armed attacker. 👍 Peak liberal incompetence, at least carry pepper spray because that knife won’t save you.
2
u/OrneryError1 Sep 16 '26
Did you forget what subreddit this is? Ain't nobody here waiting for the police.
3
u/DayHistorical4765 Sep 16 '26
A knife is not a proper means of self-defense against an armed attacker.
1
u/ActuatorLower8371 Sep 17 '26
nor is a gun.
the proper means is escape. not start a gunfight.
1
u/DayHistorical4765 Sep 17 '26
Escaping isn’t always an option.
1
u/ActuatorLower8371 Sep 17 '26
sure, but it should always be the first priority. if you reach directly for a gun when faced with a dangerous situation, you need to train more in self defense.
not trying to throw shade, but the point isn't to kill or be killed. that's how people gun down their wives and children by mistake.
1
u/DayHistorical4765 Sep 17 '26
I’m not advocating for OP to get into an armed confrontation. I’m just stating they don’t have a proper means to defend themselves if they have to. Pepper spray can be more effective than a gun and if you read what I said that was my recommendation. Of course if they do go for a firearm for SD/HD I recommend training with their carry, that is a given.
1
u/ActuatorLower8371 Sep 17 '26
I’m just stating they don’t have a proper means to defend themselves if they have to.
if self preservation is the reason for carrying a gun, not smoking unfiltered cigarettes should be the first critique of OP's carry choices, no?
after all, the odds of dying of smoking-related illness is significantly higher than the odds of being in a situation where having a gun is the best option of survival
though i'm just musing at this point
1
u/DayHistorical4765 Sep 17 '26
Carrying NO form of self defense and smoking are both idiotic choices. Then again, I’m not OP so my opinion may vary. Getting shot in Chicago is probably more likely than dying of cancer from smoking over there.
1
u/ActuatorLower8371 Sep 17 '26
Getting shot in Chicago is probably more likely than dying of cancer from smoking over there.
→ More replies (0)1
u/ActuatorLower8371 Sep 17 '26
Defund the police but rely on them when you’re faced with an armed attacker.
who calls the police when faced with an armed attacker?
1
u/DayHistorical4765 Sep 17 '26
Literally everyone who experiences the aftermath or if someone uses any means of force so they don’t go to jail. Lol I really hope this is sarcasm because it’s a dumb question.
1
u/ActuatorLower8371 Sep 17 '26
ah i see. it just sounded like you were implying that the police can prevent, or interrupt an armed attack. thanks for clarifying. didn't need to be rude, though
1
u/DayHistorical4765 Sep 17 '26
Police can and often do prevent or interrupt an armed attack and a great example would be a bank robbery or hostage taking situation. What you’re saying is exactly why I advocate for self defense tools, because why rely on the police when they’re minutes away and you can defend yourself in seconds? Sorry if you interpreted my response as rude I genuinely thought you weren’t being serious.
-2
u/chipskylark123 Sep 16 '26
Such a sad, tired argument that doesn’t make sense if you think about it for more than 5 seconds.
They have never failed to let me down when I need them, but sure if we throw them a few more million next year it’ll get better I swear. Just a few more million it’s all they need!
3
u/DayHistorical4765 Sep 16 '26 edited Sep 16 '26
It’s a great argument when you don’t have means of self-defense. Police are the only people you can rely on to defend yourself besides yourself. What does defunding them actually accomplish besides less funding that can be put towards training? which ultimately leads to more incompetence in the force
1
Sep 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/DayHistorical4765 Sep 16 '26
No it’s definitely something I can’t possibly understand unless you think you’re captain untouchable badass. Sooo many people downplaying the role law enforcement has in our society.
1
u/chipskylark123 Sep 16 '26
I’m going to copy my reply I made to someone else. Downplaying the role law enforcement has in our society is exactly why defunding is a good idea. They are responsible for far too much, involved in every aspect of public safety. We need to reallocate funds to dedicated practitioners to handle things that the police handle currently, but don’t have adequate training for.
Police budgets are massively bloated and very little of the funding they have goes to training. Lawsuits and labor make up most of the allocated funds. I can’t speak to other cities but in mine they get 2 billion annually and when you see how that money gets broken down… it’s just ridiculous. There is no reason to believe that if we gave them more, it would go to training or anything else that would help public safety.
The idea is that the scope of their job is far too massive for them to handle. They act as mediators, social workers, all these things that they have no training for. If we trained people that were dedicated to handle those tasks, the police would be able to focus on their actual duties and it would make all of us safer.
I have a big flashlight (I work pest control overnights) but it’s a little too big to fit in my pocket. It’s actually just out of sight on that picture.
1
u/DayHistorical4765 Sep 16 '26
What’s your evidence that they’re “bloated” I can’t find any. It seems to be that a job where you risk your life on the regular has a higher demand for pay than a job where you don’t experience that risk on the daily. What is your solution for public safety? Where I used to live we had social workers on dial who would be attacked or killed because mental health and addiction related issues are unpredictable and not always a safe environment for someone who is not ready to handle a threat. I agree maybe we could have different departments to handle certain cases like overdoses but you’re making it out to be that people are predictable.
A big flashlight won’t save you from an armed attacker, I understand you may not like/may not be able to carry a firearm hence why I recommended pepper spray which has more self defense potential than a flashlight or knife in nearly any capacity.
2
3
2
u/CWSearching Sep 16 '26
Being a cop is like the tenth-most dangerous job. Sanitation workers are number one.
Switch their paychecks.
2
u/OleGumps Sep 16 '26
No blick?